If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published. Writer Casey Luskin recalled a meeting with Wesley Elsberry, a long-time activist for the Darwin lobby and former staff member at the National Center for Science Education, who literally rejoiced whenever Intelligent Design scientists had their papers rejected from journals. Furthermore, Elsberry had the gall to criticize Intelligent Design proponents for not publishing in the mainstream scientific literature (an untrue charge).
66 comments
Yeah, I totally agree with you. They would not publish my paper either. Even though it was totally based on facts. It wouldn't even have taken up much of their space. It said "God did it and I can prove it because it says so in the bible".
Censorship is so wrong (when aimed at my side)!
If you Google Casey Luskin, this is the first entry you will find:
http://www.discovery.org/p/188
Without going past this page and checking any of the links provided, please advise what someone whose scientific discipline is "earth science" can possibly say about evolution other than question the fossil record? And even at that, if the word "intermediate" appears anywhere in this context the entire article loses all credibility.
Also, how can a critique of the Kitzmiller ruling be both "comprehensive and concise"?
If creationist papers cannot meet the scientific standards on data, analysis, and intellectual integrity, then they don't deserve to get printed in scientific literature.
If I were them, I too, would be rejoicing that ID had their drivel rejected. Though, it could be because that ID papers don't present any evidence, or do any of the work scientists are supposed to do.
"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby"
Hitler's Table Talk, July 25, l942:
'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the
very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at
Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals
changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a
kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump,
as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'
Looks like the swastika is on the other arm.
Casey is just mad that their Wedge Strategy isn't working. They are persecution fantasists like all the rest of the fundies. Casey is no scientist, and not qualified to speak on the validity of any work of science, be it mainstream science or that produced by ID proponents*.
*Which is not good science, as evidenced by the fact that it is mostly not published in journals because it can't pass peer review. They resort to bullying publishers and accusing them of free speech violations, but still their work doesn't stand.
Yes, it is a veritable holocaust against creationism. Seriously though, stop comparing everything to the Nazis. It's really offensive and annoying. It trivializes the death of millions of people all for some stupid political point. As for the rest of your bullshit, creationist (and don't try that "it's not creationism, it's intelligent design" bullshit; the Dover trial showed everyone the wolf under the sheep's clothing) papers are rejected because all they ever do is 1) attack ToE and 2) find a "mystery" or "complexity" and assert that it must have been designed. That's NOT how you validate a hypothesis. Real scientific theories bring new insight and new applications and can stand on their own merits. In fact, I have yet to find a scientific paper on evolution that relies on attacking creationism and if such a paper even exists, it's certainly not typical.
Many ID proponents have published in mainstream science literature. They just haven't published about ID. ID papers are rejected because they are always "arguments from ignorance" (I don't see how evolution can be true, therefore it isn't), false dichotomies (evolution is false therefore ID must be true) and lack original research.
It's probably because there's absolutely no science in "Intelligent Design." If I submitted a paper claiming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created humans, I'm sure it would be rejected as well.
The main reason is probably because all arguments in favor of Intelligent Design are either attacks on evolutionary theory, in effect making the argument that if evolutionary theory is false, it proves that ID is true; or some vague "things look designed, therefore there has to be some cosmic, all-powerful deity which made everything and which just happens to be the same god I believe in" argument. Neither of which are real science.
Nazi Censorship:
"You have not sufficiently praised the Furher! YOU MUST DIE!"
The Censorship Ellis Is Actually Talking About:
"WTF is this garbage!? GO HOME AND DO SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH, IDIOT!"
Notice a difference?
"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published."
Refusing to publish something that lacks scientific merit, experimental evidence or even a basis in reality is not some sort of conspiracy. It's how science works.
"Writer Casey Luskin recalled a meeting with Wesley Elsberry, a long-time activist for the Darwin lobby and former staff member at the National Center for Science Education, who literally rejoiced whenever Intelligent Design scientists had their papers rejected from journals."
As do I, and I'm not even a scientist.
"Furthermore, Elsberry had the gall to criticize Intelligent Design proponents for not publishing in the mainstream scientific literature (an untrue charge)."
No, it's not an untrue charge. You show me a scientifically valid paper written by an "Intelligent Design scientist" on the topic of ID in a legitimate scientific journal.
I don't want something by Behe or someone else who has legitimate scientific credentials publishing something using standard science ideas; I want to see where Behe or others have written on the topic of ID and successfully had it published in a respected scientific journal.
Good luck.
Are these papers that just aim at critizing scientific theories, but don't come with new evidence-based science?
I thought the whole idea about science was to come with something new, some valuable addition to already existing knowledge.
"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published."
If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the God lobby, consider that just six years ago, another case was uncovered about how they routinely try to enforce Creationism in US schools, as part of their agenda to eliminate anything that criticises Genesis in the Bible.
Fortunately, said God Lobby's own educational agenda fucked up in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and their case fell apart. Teaching Creationism (by Stealth, via so-called 'Intelligent Design') was made illegal and unconstitutional by the ruling of Judge John E. Jones III. A Christian Conservative.
Evolution is fact . Creationism is lies . The law says so. And your own Scripture - Romans 13:1-5 - orders you to obey the law.
Deal with it.
Let's take the design of the human eye, shall we? One of three things must be true:
1. With all of its flaws (blind spot, locations of nerves and blood vessels), it wasn't designed
2. The designer was incompetent and unable to make it as fully effective as possible
3. The designer just prefers squid and other creatures whose eyes don't have the same flaws
Tell me which of these options makes the most sense.
Casey Luskin is a shill for the ID lobby. ID has been debunked by science, and completely destroyed in court.
Critisism isn't beinf silenced. It's just that if you are spouting nonsense, you will get called on it, and you will be ridiculed, and not taken seriously. If you write a paper that essentially says "God did it", you will be laughed out of the scientific community.
Sour grapes!
If someone's mommy had told them the mud pie in their hand was a big lump of dirt instead of pretending that it was the most marvelous and thoughtful gift ever, we might have a little less of this going on. Even if you wrote it yourself, it's still crap when it's crap. The standards are well documented.
Choosy mothers choose Jif!
I'm no expert, but I think a paper has to be scientific to be considered a scientific paper.
I really think, though, that scientists should allow papers on ID to be published in their scientific journals, but only under a "humor & satire" section.
@Joe Mama:
"I really think, though, that scientists should allow papers on ID to be published in their scientific journals, but only under a "humor & satire" section."
To be fair and balanced, they should also include geocentric astronomers and Hogwarts faculty.
The day a truly well researched paper clearly demonstrating intelligent design is written, it will get published. The problem is none have ever been written. They're all garbage because intelligent design is not science, it's religion in disguise.
You seem to be confusing untrue with completely true. Not a single paper on Intelligent Design has ever been published in a peer-review journal because Intelligent Design does not hold up under the intense scrutiny these papers demand, and proponents of ID know this. That's why they prefer to publish their crap in books that are published by organizations that are set up specifically to advance creationism.
Ellis, that is how science works. When a paper is submitted for paper review it WILL be savaged by the reviewers. It does not matter what the topic is, the process is exactly the same. If no significant fault can be found, despite the best efforts of the reviewers, then and only then will it possibly be approved for publication.
The question is not why are ID papers being ripped to shreds by reviewers. That is their job, it is part of science. The question is, why do the writers of articles on ID think they can get a free ride to publication and still call what they do "science?"
So you are claiming censorship, yet the only evidence you have is the word of the Discover institutes "attack" dog with a reputation of lying describing a meeting about a pro science advocate who rejoices when a ID paper is rejected.
Even if what Lieskin says is true then it's hardly censorship to be happy thaat peer review is doing what it is supposed to and ensuring that pseudoscience is not published.
Gestapo tactics: coming to your house in the middle of the night, arresting you, taking you to a secret location, interrogating and torturing you, then sending you to a concentration camp.
"Darwin lobby" (ie vast majority of scientists): Asserting that "Intelligent Design" lacks any evidence.
These two things are not similar.
Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, World Net Daily.
One of these things is not like the others...
There's no mystery or nazi-esque conspiracy about it: Use the real scientific method to prove your hypothesis, and you will be published in real scientific journals. That is the standard ALL studies are held to, not just yours.
When scientists are unanimously rejecting your theory, that means you're bullshitting people, not that there's some super-conspiracy.
If you need more proof that this is the case, imagine the uproar you people would make if ACTUAL PROOF for creationism was discovered. You would berate the scientists for ignoring that evidence, right? But look at your statement again; there is no proof, just hot air and an accusation of conspiracy.
I love this.
You know what Luskin is so upset with Mr. Elsberry about in this specific case? Elsberry helped work to get an ID propaganda paper withdrawn from a journal.
A journal of mathematics.
And the paper was dealing with the second law of thermodynamics.
The IDiots aren't even bothering to deal with evolution in, you know, biology. They know that the people who are actually experts in the field would laugh them out. So they go to get their paper published in a journal dedicated to a completely different field. And then they try to hide their real agenda underneath the mask of physics. (Physics they don't understand -- the paper in question delivered the "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics canard.) And even then, they aren't submitting to a physics journal either. And then they get called out on how wrong they are by Dr. Elsberry (who, I believe, is a marine biologist).
What these guys don't understand is that academia is not a kind of country club where you're accepted or not based in a God knows which kind of non written rules of the jour. They have outlined the last 200 years a number of criteria, whose application has led with success to many of the advances in technology we enjoy today, including the computer you're typing. If a creationist fails to meet those standards it's not fascism and all that jazz. He doesn't want to play by those rules, don't play. Period.
Too wordy, Ellis, allow me to paraphrase.
"Standards are bad because they discriminate against liars and idiots."
Yes, it is a conspiracy of nerds.
They "block" papers because they have no scientific merit, dumb ass.
Intelligent Design Scientist = ANOTHER oxymoron from Ellis!
If the charge in untrue, then this conspiracy you speak of can't be very effective can it?
Here's the problem fool, peer review scientific journals don't print crap and intelligent design is crap.
Hey Ellis, if I write a bullshit pseudoscientific paper and try to get it published, I will get rejected too. It's because science papers have to be about science, and science is about experimentation, logical thinking and basing your conclusions on verifiable facts that can be determined through the scientific method. How many of those things do the ID articles contain, if any? What exactly is testable about ID? See, even if you could answer one of these questions, you'd probably be able to publish something ID related in a science journal, but failing that you will not. So stop molesting the high horse and shut the fuck up.
"You're stupid, piss off" isn't exactly censorship.
And surely they were published, look for your nearest port-o-john.
I'm puzzled as to why ID supporters are so keen on gaining scientific respectability. Their pitch is clearly philosophical/theological and goes back to the classical proofs for the existence of a Deity, now discredited. If they have anything worth saying it is to philosophers and theologians that they should be saying it. [Creationism, similarly, is a religious position first, a "scientific" one second]
My argument goes like this: if there is indeed an Intelligent Designer he either wants us to know of his existence or he doesn't. If he does, he's been such a lousy self-publicist that very few people have got the message, so perhaps he's not so intelligent after all; and if he doesn't, we shouldn't be trying to fathom his purposes, because he will have made himself inscrutable and we're wasting our time. Either way, ID is of no value and the scientific establishment is quite right to close ranks against it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.